But aren't you just assuming that 2.25% is FRAND, rather than a sweetheart deal? Yeah, odds are $1 per device, especially just devices going forward, is way too low, but why is 2.25% way too high? If you think about it, if there are 10 companies with standards-essential patents, and each charges 2.25%, then that's 22.5% of the device's post-profit cost, which seems rather high. Also, I believe that there are way more than 10 companies that own patents that are essential to cell phone standards.
But even killing humans is not always murder. For example, killing in self-defense is not murder. Killing in war is not generally murder (extension of self-defense to the tribe). The anti-abortion argument is that killing an unborn baby is murder. This argument can be a religious one, but it need not be. (And as an aside, the law generally agrees except in the case of abortion. If a pregnant woman is stabbed in the belly, and it kills the unborn baby, the person who stabbed her is generally charged with murder of the baby.)
The thing is, you seem to be deliberately conflating a lot of things, and I'm not sure at this point what you'd even stipulate. You do not seem to stipulate that killing is wrong, and I can see (as above) circumstances where that is true. Nor am I certain that you would stipulate common word definitions, at this point. So I guess if there's a way forward, I have to ask what you are willing to stipulate, or if we have to start at the differentiation between living and non-living matter - or even between matter and non-matter - if we are going to get anywhere.
You might think that we need a definition for "person" too, but we have an operational definition already. If it's OK to kill it, then it's not a person.
Circular reasoning. You claim that it is ok to kill a baby because a baby is not a person, and that a person is something that it's not OK to kill.
So what consitutes an entity capable of having rights? A person? If so, at what point does a person come into existence? How is that a fact, as you said earlier, rather than an opinion, and why is it that other people's opinions on when a person comes into existence wrong? If it is not necessarily a person that constitutes an entity capable of having rights, then what is an entity capable of having rights?
The Supreme Court is no longer necessary to effectively overturn Roe v. Wade. Since Obamacare was ruled Constitutional, it is thus within the purview of the Secretary of Health and Human Services to decide what health care service may, may not, must or must not be covered by insurance or provided by companies and organizations. I see no reason why any President could not simply appoint a HHS Secretary who will ban abortion from being covered by insurance, provided by organizations, or paid for by the government. Whether or not exceptions are made is not relevant to the analysis. The point is, Obamacare is carte blanche for Roe v. Wade to be gutted administratively, even if the procedure is nominally protected by the Constitution otherwise.
And your recommendation is that when they come ask the professor for help on how to do something, that the professor do what exactly? Tell them to pound sand? If that's the case, please please please don't go into teaching.
Actually, it makes a lot of sense. Just try teaching three different people using three different tools. Now try it with 30. Or at a university, try it with 300. How many tools might they use? How many of those can you be expert in? Does your time spent gaining expertise in a wide variety of tools help or hinder your ability to teach the things those tools are intended to do for you? In other words, does the complexity of supporting multiple tools with different feature sets enhance or degrade from the ability to convey the methods and techniques for editing film? My guess is degrade; hence, the need for tools standardization.
No one should doubt the necessity and benefits of love to a child, or the harmful effects of neglect. That said, is it just me, or was much of that story eerily reminiscent of phrenology?
Yes. Go look up Cambodia as an example. Hint: Google "the killing fields". Many, many other examples abound throughout societies during periods of Communist government, but that's a particularly striking one.
And, of course, the identical statements could be made about atheists, with the militant atheists like Dawkins taking the part of the "always, always right" faction.
Dawkins admits to ignorance of both religion and baseball. But he doesn't go around attacking the designated hitter rule, and does go around attacking Christian religious tenets. He is offensive because his outrage is selectively targeted at something he admits to not knowing about, and which by definition is not reached by science, which is his expertise. (And I'm Pagan, so you can only imagine how offensive he is to the 70% of Americans who are Christian.) If Dawkins contained himself to arguing for science, he'd be on solid ground. Instead, he argues vociferously against Christianity, and thereby frequently looks the fool.
Wow, really? Nothing says "usability" like having to get your own work reported by a third party before it's considered acceptable. How many people, come right down to it, are going to bother? I understand the argument about trying to keep Wikipedia in some sense verifiable, rather than overrun by trolls and conspiracy theories, but there is such a thing as going too far.
The first law. The energy required to extract the CO2 may be larger than the energy generated by the fuel produced. The energy required to extract the hydrogen would certainly be larger than the energy generated by the fuel produced. In addition, there are more steps required along the way from raw materials to raw materials on hand to usable fuel than there are for, say, drilling and refining oil. The net effect of more steps, many of them more expensive (in terms of energy) is less efficient production of fuel, thus more expensive fuel. I haven't done the calculations, but my guess is roughly an order of magnitude more expensive than current methods of extracting and refining oil into gasoline.
Implemented at the switch level, exponentially increase the time before a new call can be placed from the same number based on the number of calls already placed recently. In other words, hangup to dial would normally be instantaneous. After a certain number of calls in a certain time frame, that would increase to a second between dials, then 2, then 4, etc. The idea would be to throttle the heavy call volumes that robocalls generate, thus increasing costs and thus decreasing the incentive to use them. Robocalls would still happen, but the volume would decrease.
Thermodynamics says that's going to be some very, very expensive fuel. But more immediately, doesn't this sound like the green version of the lead-into-silver scams of the 1700s? If they say they need a canal built: run.
Or why not stop paying the schools by the student-days of attendance? Perhaps a more sane method of funding the schools, if you're going to have public schools in the first place, would work.
Now I'm just wondering if you're using a bad phone/terminal program. For example, the comment about dictionary words: does your phone/terminal program attempt spelling correction in the terminal window? If so, then yes, that combination isn't going to work, though I wonder how it would work even with a physical keyboard. For the special characters, I touch the symbol (or shift) key as needed and slide to the right key on the keyboard. It's a pain for programming, because keys like { } # and so on require a press, then the touch and swipe, but for terminal stuff it's fine. Obviously, mileage may vary.
Slashdot Mirror
But aren't you just assuming that 2.25% is FRAND, rather than a sweetheart deal? Yeah, odds are $1 per device, especially just devices going forward, is way too low, but why is 2.25% way too high? If you think about it, if there are 10 companies with standards-essential patents, and each charges 2.25%, then that's 22.5% of the device's post-profit cost, which seems rather high. Also, I believe that there are way more than 10 companies that own patents that are essential to cell phone standards.
But even killing humans is not always murder. For example, killing in self-defense is not murder. Killing in war is not generally murder (extension of self-defense to the tribe). The anti-abortion argument is that killing an unborn baby is murder. This argument can be a religious one, but it need not be. (And as an aside, the law generally agrees except in the case of abortion. If a pregnant woman is stabbed in the belly, and it kills the unborn baby, the person who stabbed her is generally charged with murder of the baby.)
The thing is, you seem to be deliberately conflating a lot of things, and I'm not sure at this point what you'd even stipulate. You do not seem to stipulate that killing is wrong, and I can see (as above) circumstances where that is true. Nor am I certain that you would stipulate common word definitions, at this point. So I guess if there's a way forward, I have to ask what you are willing to stipulate, or if we have to start at the differentiation between living and non-living matter - or even between matter and non-matter - if we are going to get anywhere.
Circular reasoning. You claim that it is ok to kill a baby because a baby is not a person, and that a person is something that it's not OK to kill.
So what consitutes an entity capable of having rights? A person? If so, at what point does a person come into existence? How is that a fact, as you said earlier, rather than an opinion, and why is it that other people's opinions on when a person comes into existence wrong? If it is not necessarily a person that constitutes an entity capable of having rights, then what is an entity capable of having rights?
The Supreme Court is no longer necessary to effectively overturn Roe v. Wade. Since Obamacare was ruled Constitutional, it is thus within the purview of the Secretary of Health and Human Services to decide what health care service may, may not, must or must not be covered by insurance or provided by companies and organizations. I see no reason why any President could not simply appoint a HHS Secretary who will ban abortion from being covered by insurance, provided by organizations, or paid for by the government. Whether or not exceptions are made is not relevant to the analysis. The point is, Obamacare is carte blanche for Roe v. Wade to be gutted administratively, even if the procedure is nominally protected by the Constitution otherwise.
Catholics, at the very bare minimum, would disagree with that statement.
And your recommendation is that when they come ask the professor for help on how to do something, that the professor do what exactly? Tell them to pound sand? If that's the case, please please please don't go into teaching.
Actually, it makes a lot of sense. Just try teaching three different people using three different tools. Now try it with 30. Or at a university, try it with 300. How many tools might they use? How many of those can you be expert in? Does your time spent gaining expertise in a wide variety of tools help or hinder your ability to teach the things those tools are intended to do for you? In other words, does the complexity of supporting multiple tools with different feature sets enhance or degrade from the ability to convey the methods and techniques for editing film? My guess is degrade; hence, the need for tools standardization.
No one should doubt the necessity and benefits of love to a child, or the harmful effects of neglect. That said, is it just me, or was much of that story eerily reminiscent of phrenology?
Yes. Go look up Cambodia as an example. Hint: Google "the killing fields". Many, many other examples abound throughout societies during periods of Communist government, but that's a particularly striking one.
And, of course, the identical statements could be made about atheists, with the militant atheists like Dawkins taking the part of the "always, always right" faction.
Dawkins admits to ignorance of both religion and baseball. But he doesn't go around attacking the designated hitter rule, and does go around attacking Christian religious tenets. He is offensive because his outrage is selectively targeted at something he admits to not knowing about, and which by definition is not reached by science, which is his expertise. (And I'm Pagan, so you can only imagine how offensive he is to the 70% of Americans who are Christian.) If Dawkins contained himself to arguing for science, he'd be on solid ground. Instead, he argues vociferously against Christianity, and thereby frequently looks the fool.
Wow, really? Nothing says "usability" like having to get your own work reported by a third party before it's considered acceptable. How many people, come right down to it, are going to bother? I understand the argument about trying to keep Wikipedia in some sense verifiable, rather than overrun by trolls and conspiracy theories, but there is such a thing as going too far.
(For the record, I know which Jimmy Wales you were referring to. Just realized that someone is going to totally miss that.)
But at least Jimmy Wales is a godlike guitar player. Oh, you said "sing." Carry on, then.
Also, discovery should be ... interesting.
Or, this being Apple: modParent:parent upByAmount:1 withExtremePrejudice:TRUE;
I'm not arguing whether emissions are reduced. I'm arguing that it will be a very expensive process.
The first law. The energy required to extract the CO2 may be larger than the energy generated by the fuel produced. The energy required to extract the hydrogen would certainly be larger than the energy generated by the fuel produced. In addition, there are more steps required along the way from raw materials to raw materials on hand to usable fuel than there are for, say, drilling and refining oil. The net effect of more steps, many of them more expensive (in terms of energy) is less efficient production of fuel, thus more expensive fuel. I haven't done the calculations, but my guess is roughly an order of magnitude more expensive than current methods of extracting and refining oil into gasoline.
Implemented at the switch level, exponentially increase the time before a new call can be placed from the same number based on the number of calls already placed recently. In other words, hangup to dial would normally be instantaneous. After a certain number of calls in a certain time frame, that would increase to a second between dials, then 2, then 4, etc. The idea would be to throttle the heavy call volumes that robocalls generate, thus increasing costs and thus decreasing the incentive to use them. Robocalls would still happen, but the volume would decrease.
Thermodynamics says that's going to be some very, very expensive fuel. But more immediately, doesn't this sound like the green version of the lead-into-silver scams of the 1700s? If they say they need a canal built: run.
Not humanly possible, even if they put poisoned needles in each key.
Or why not stop paying the schools by the student-days of attendance? Perhaps a more sane method of funding the schools, if you're going to have public schools in the first place, would work.
Bigoted much?
Now I'm just wondering if you're using a bad phone/terminal program. For example, the comment about dictionary words: does your phone/terminal program attempt spelling correction in the terminal window? If so, then yes, that combination isn't going to work, though I wonder how it would work even with a physical keyboard. For the special characters, I touch the symbol (or shift) key as needed and slide to the right key on the keyboard. It's a pain for programming, because keys like { } # and so on require a press, then the touch and swipe, but for terminal stuff it's fine. Obviously, mileage may vary.